Nathan Newman blasts me for criticizing union (and liberal) strategies on Wal-Mart mostly, it seems, because other people, notably the stunningly successful minds behind the modern Labor movement, have decided those strategies are correct. Fine and well, I guess. But his points seem to miss the issue, which is that they don't talk in any sense about the issue. Furman's paper teasing out inconsistencies and gaping flaws within the liberal critique of Wal-Mart needs to be taken seriously, particularly by liberals engaged in that critique. Newman's reflexive closing of ranks isn't helpful here -- a methodical demolition of Furman's paper would be. Now, I tend to come down on the side of Furman's opponent, which is that the question isn't Wal-Mart: yes or no? It's can Wal-Mart do better, what does better look like, and how do we get there. And the argument I make at Tapped is that better doesn't look like a grudging improvement in health coverage, as that'd actually be regressive. The argument that Newman responds with is that I should really just shut up.
I'd love to see Newman eviscerate Furman's argument. After reading the distorted coverage in Tierney and Mallaby's columns, that was my intention. But Furman's points are sound, his data strong, and his conclusions important. That's not to say he lacks weaknesses or moments of myopia, but it is to say that it's incumbent on Newman (and me, and Matt, and you...) to tease them out, not just cry out for solidarity to trump intellectual integrity. If we all unite under the wrong banner and get Wal-mart to do something that screws up our longer term goals, we may celebrate a limited victory in the fight for Wal-Mart employees, but we'll eventually lament our large loss in the fight for a better, more worker-friendly society.
